I had learned earliest in my being raised that advice is freely given and not compulsory taken. So much has cascaded breaking to news that I suspect Editorial Desks are too hands-filled, everyone is feeling the heat but enjoying the rapid tumbling of information from historical events to the present and the agony to determine, not the relevance but deciding the order for presentation in bulletins and publishing.
I remember this is the rare occasion when seniors who should take crucial decisions run away excused on seeing the Doctor. It is apart from Budget Days where it was regular and the only mitigating consolation is that it is not “budget day” always unlike this run of news forces a play catch up today at the Press Houses. It is relieving thought that such occurs occasionally. But any news break could assume wild forest fire dimension like in Europe, Australia and the US perennially. Here we are overwhelmed by yesterdays’ who did or did not do which—Rawlings versus Rida; cry out over new currency, Kennedy Agyapong’sdiscomfiture together with his broadcast broadsides at his own ruling NPP:
“1 million, one constituency, I have a problem with it because now when I meet with my constituency executives, they get angry about it. One million, one constituency, they thought the money will come to the constituency so they could be part of how it is used but the money never came, only for them to be told that some toilets and water projects have been done. And I asked: “where is the toilet?” Me, I am the MP of that area, but I am not even aware that toilets have been built. Those toilets, “who are building them and where? “ onAsempa FM Radio.”
Troublesome copy we call it. However I only excerpted the synopsis to illustrate the deeper meaning lined up along the first part of the wise saying which I broke up. I shall now fit in the other part. It says ‘…yet it is or could be rough times not heeding’ consequently. Elaborated, advice is given in reacting to something that just happened. Opinions drop like ninepins about almost anything. Both the taciturn and talkative seize themselvesto comment.
The stock collected becomes a library of what is neither a remotely intended or empirically expected knowledge-minefield. Latin labels both with exquisite appropriateness: “mirabiledictum et mirabilevisu.” [translate–it is wonderful to say and to see—simply, to have] futurely and immediately. However, there is a rarity which has the quality of surprise coincidence; and confessedly, whichever, depends solely,sharpens or dulls our retentive memory. That is it affects our ability to relay accurate recalls.
Neither can be faulted. The reason is a set in the package of the circumstances– of the conveyor and the environment, if the information is relevant, generally or limited. Unfortunately, in a country so cut-and-thrust, and often, bitterly divided by ages-long angry politics, any retailing of a minute information gets segregated. Almost instantly and simultaneously the significance of the information is made credible or banal between the powers-that-be and not-be. Having lowered or raised the bar, no action responding ensues.
The public reaction bits about the new money is poignant, informatively, for politicians specifically. The apparent concern centres on complaints about the “Biggie” denominations. Since that would be fair aggregate of public consensus, I can skip into the substance of the not too loudly half or the main indeed in summary: ‘you see, the politicians. They are the same. They have dumped it on us and cut out their own enough to pay for their campaign. We are in election year.’ True or false and good or bad testimonial are not the point. The theme states a general belief that has not come about only recently. It is from ancient times—distrust of politicians in this country. The charges are a litany and piles on.
I mean the versions are confusing us. And there is only one reason: we cannot get the truth—the nothing but the truth. But that is because we do not trust ourselves, none of another. At the same time, the eagerness in us to want to get to the truth does not abate. The cannot-be-repressed swell surges because the state of our minds is too steeply entrenched in a dangerous divide, partisanship or stuck with only one immutable side. A couple of examples can bring home the point—a Prelate rails at the culture of ‘protected fugitive offenders’ and therefore looting state coffers with impunity stays on picnic; Teachers walk out and it is blamed on the rival party’s machinations—scoffed in the saying ‘it is an election-year and expected’.
That has been the cycle for years and especially in precincts of ballot seasonally; but provides the catalyst to ask “any more”? The bite then in the unheeded advice consequently resides there. If it was not clear from the beginning that advice may not necessarily be spoken as a given, I plead “mea culpa.” But then advice more often emanates from lesson learned than declared. I would have thought that 62 is more than much stay in any learning curve. The germane question is arewe a nation people who do not learn our lessons,?
It is important to confess my response dodges the regular scape goat—politics and politicians. Our affliction is not that we don’t think. We rather prefer soft options, too gullible. Thus we block our path to find the truth which should guide processing mandates to avoid repeating our mistakes instead of forging a new style. That may be taken to complete the meaning of the wise saying. But its not over. I have share thoughts on the Rawlings-Rida-riddle. Confronting the general public is whose version is credible.
Reading the scripts of both, you realise high tensions and both don’t have a way with words. In the heads-on, the counter accusations of short memoriehe first in a relative mode s reign down sour feelings. But that is for them. However, the levels of the base language demand both should take in-depth look to put a bright face on their separate submissions. The public are interested to learn what happened. The dates are May and June 1979 when train started. That interest divides into three: correcting the history, understanding case for and against the insurrection as both convey explanatorily but in separate accounts and qui bono—who benefitted or of what benefit?.
Mind you, the quest for “saving the nation” has been repetitively recited by prior military interventionists –NLC, NRC, SMC I-SMC II. It constitutes a damaging deposition and had always me it difficult to write an acceptable story for posterity. For example would be right to assume all the instances of take-overs were products of ‘you criticise the process when you can’t beat the substance.’ Or, in lieu of figuring one plausible cause to cut out lots of difficulty for an authentic record, you stick to the proposition that coup-mania felt like that phraseology was a talisman or leg to stand on, for as long as it appeared worthwhile clinging to that.
And I would think looking back at the succession of the spontaneity of popular support as seen in demonstrations throughout the country hailing each coup d’etat, is a reasonable reference. Thus factored, the rife belief among coup-regimes would be justified. Those euphoric scenes every ousting showed that the people of the country must have felt redemption had arrived.
Apart its logic, this is totally unfair all round. This is because it primarily undercuts the chief argument to legitimise —‘saving the nation’ in which of course there were tangibles, however moot. The two former Officers [Rawlings and Rida] owe the nation a pure testimony, of which there is abundant potential in each as their first literature suggests. That will be the end of the hostile stalemate, history would be the richer and grateful and leaves the current climate un-anything is possible because there is something concrete.
For the former leader Rawlings, I think it is time to explain causes for others treating him into dishonourable discomfort. I think of two—firstly, he is best known by this generation having grown up with him. He carries that as a badge of honour. The second follows relatedly: he has overwhelming public appeal, undeniable; but it is sectorial whereby there is a hankering by some to hear from him all the time; but there are others always fishing to push hot-baked stinking fish into his mouth and when he spits it, the result is hei…..heiii…eiei… iii..hei …eeiiii……sometimes.
But on a more notable side of disagreement there is an account of a kind by Maj. BoakyeDjan which was published in “Africa Watch” not too long years ago. I guess there are snippets of information meandering the same theme to glean some more to piece up the story. I should find it to try. But, however early or late, it wont be like from the two Horses own mouths properly converged,
© Prof. nana essilfie-conduah.
